144,000 a literal number

by Bonnie_Clyde 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Leolaia

Flash sez:
They said that "the Lamb" in Revalation 14:1 was Jesus and and since there is only one "Lamb of God" the 144,000 standing with "him" must be a true number, not symbolic.
You're reading a number into the text when there is none mentioned. You can infer a number from the singular article, but there is no parallelism between numbers. However the "Lamb" and the "144,000" are both figurative expressions. Here is a rather goofy instance of this weak argument:
***
w60 6/15 p. 384 Questions from Readers ***
Further, at Revelation 14:1, 3, we read of Jesus Christ as standing upon the mount Zion together with 144,000 others. The 144,000 would logically be as literal as the 1, making a total of 144,001 standing upon the mount. Besides, why give such a large and specific number if it does not impart information?
Aside from addition, there is also subtraction of the apostles, resulting in the seemingly precise number 143,989 of anointed Christians:
***
w61 3/15 pp. 165-166 Should You Partake of the Lord?s Evening Meal? ***
Other scriptures show that sharing this glory with Jesus and his eleven faithful apostles will be 143,989 others, for a total of 144,001.
Narkissos

*** w61 3/15 pp. 165-166 Should You Partake of the Lord?s Evening Meal? ***
Other scriptures show that sharing this glory with Jesus and his eleven faithful apostles will be 143,989 others, for a total of 144,001.
LOL! I hope Quotes sees that one if he has not seen it earlier...
Flash

Narkissos
An admittedly simplistic argument (the best in this case):
Are the 12,000 figure for each of the twelve tribes (Rev. 7:5-8) making up the 144,000 (v. 4) symbolical or literal?
How does the addition of 12 symbolical figures come up to a literal one?
I don't see how one cancels out the other. I think their reasoning is correct.
Are the measurements for the New Jerusalem, i.e. 144 cubits (Rev. 21:17), with 12 gates and 12 foundations, symbolical or literal?
Symbolic, I could'nt guess the literal application. I think that's something we'll find out later, post-Armageddon .........................................
Leolaia
You're reading a number into the text when there is none mentioned. You can infer a number from the singular article, but there is no parallelism between numbers. However the "Lamb" and the "144,000" are both figurative expressions.
I disagree, and I can't explain it better than they did. If it doesn't make sense to you, then it doesn't
Here is a rather goofy instance of this weak argument:
***
w60 6/15 p. 384 Questions from Readers ***
Further, at Revelation 14:1, 3, we read of Jesus Christ as standing upon the mount Zion together with 144,000 others. The 144,000 would logically be as literal as the 1, making a total of 144,001 standing upon the mount. Besides, why give such a large and specific number if it does not impart information?
I believe its neither goofy or weak. Again, its logical and makes perfect sense to me.
............................................
To the both of you...What do you believe it means?
outbutnotdown

*** w61 3/15 pp. 165-166 Should You Partake of the Lord?s Evening Meal? ***
Other scriptures show that sharing this glory with Jesus and his eleven faithful apostles will be 143,989 others, for a total of 144,001.

Flash,
Can you show me any OTHER SCRIPTURES that show these numbers to be the case, that they are so boldly making a claim about?.
I'm going to assume, no, so, since they are wrong about something that they are so adamant about, would it not make sense that they are wrong about everything they say....... to use the same logic that thye do?:
*** w60 6/15 p. 384 Questions from Readers ***
Further, at Revelation 14:1, 3, we read of Jesus Christ as standing upon the mount Zion together with 144,000 others. The 144,000 would logically be as literal as the 1, making a total of 144,001 standing upon the mount.
It akes perfect sense to me!!!!
Brad
Narkissos

Flash:
I only tried to highlight a formal inconsistency in your reasoning: you say (1) 144,000 is a literal number because the lamb is literally one (although the figure "one" is actually not in the text, as Leolaia pointed out), and "it was unreasonable to think that the statement made in verse one would be split and be both literal and symbolic....It makes sense to me." And then you say that (2) in Revelation 7:4ff the number 144,000 is literal and the number 12,000 is symbolic. This time it is not "unreasonable to think that the statement [is] split and be both literal and symbolic." See the problem?
To answer your question, there is little doubt to me that the 144,000 (12 x 12 x 1000) is the symbol of the ideal Israel (cf. the similar symbolism in the description of the New Jerusalem, 21:12,14,17; also the relation of the 12 apostles to the 12 tribes in Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). Perhaps in a first, judeo-Christian stage of the text it meant all faithful Israelites in a both religious and ethnic sense. At the final stage of Revelation, it certainly means all faithful Christians making up the new Israel, regardless of their origin (7:9ff; the white robes come from 6,11 which refers specifically to martyrs, who are told to wait "until the number would be complete both of their fellow servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed"). Of course in both cases "faithful" is determined by the theology of the writer...
An additional detail: in chapter 14 the revelation of the number 144,000 follows, as an obvious contrast, the number of the beast (13,18) which is 666. This one cannot be literal.
Leolaia

The argument that the 144,000 number must be literal because the passage mentions the Lamb in the same sentence is weak because a singular noun is just a singular noun -- not a contrasting number; it does not itself demand that any other number mentioned in the same sentence must be literal, especially since the "Lamb" itself is a figurative expression. Should we also believe that these 144,000 individuals literally have the name of the Father carved into their foreheads? Are they also all literally sexual virgins who "have not defiled themselves with women"? That would eliminate most anointed JWs as possible members of the 144,000. Would all those 144,000 also be literally standing on the 45 square acres of the literal Temple Mount in Jerusalem (as opposed to the heavenly Zion of Hebrews 12:22-24, which strongly resembles the passage in Revelation)?? Why single out the number as being literal in an otherwise figurative passage, especially since the component "tribes" mentioned in Revelation 7 are obviously non-literal?
If you are arguing literality on the basis of the Lamb being mentioned in the same passage, does that mean that Jesus is literally a lamb? Or would you use a figurative lamb to argue for a literal number of figurative virgins?
Flash

outbutnotdown
Flash,
Can you show me any OTHER SCRIPTURES that show these numbers to be the case, that they are so boldly making a claim about?.
I'm going to assume, no, so, since they are wrong about something that they are so adamant about, would it not make sense that they are wrong about everything they say....... to use the same logic that thye do?:
You would assume right. I can only repeat what I've already said, I believe the GB's came to a logical conclusion on this. I think their right and still makes perfect sense to me.
*** w60 6/15 p. 384 Questions from Readers ***
Further, at Revelation 14:1, 3, we read of Jesus Christ as standing upon the mount Zion together with 144,000 others. The 144,000 would logically be as literal as the 1, making a total of 144,001 standing upon the mount.
It akes perfect sense to me!!!!
Brad
Correct. The total is one hundred and fourty four thousand and one. .
Tashawaa

An admittedly simplistic argument (the best in this case):
Are the 12,000 figure for each of the twelve tribes (Rev. 7:5-8) making up the 144,000 (v. 4) symbolical or literal?
How does the addition of 12 symbolical figures come up to a literal one?

I don't see how one cancels out the other. I think their reasoning is correct.
Hey - this is the BEST argument I have ever seen for a literal 144k. Its short, and to the point. I didn't have to sift thru paragraphs of reasoning to see his point (unlike Leolaia who makes my head hurt ).
outbutnotdown

Flash,
You took my two points, made by the WTBTS, which are contradictory, then you separated them and said that they are both true.
What's up with that? I'm honestly dumbfounded.
Brad
Flash

Narkissos
Flash:
I only tried to highlight a formal inconsistency in your reasoning: you say (1) 144,000 is a literal number because the lamb is literally one (although the figure "one" is actually not in the text, as Leolaia pointed out),
I don't see it as an inconsistency because it's meaning is contained within the wording in a single sentence.
And then you say that (2) in Revelation 7:4ff the number 144,000 is literal and the number 12,000 is symbolic. This time it is not "unreasonable to think that the statement [is] split and be both literal and symbolic." See the problem?
No. It's seems to me the number may have dual significance. I don't see that as an contridiction. Who on earth knows why God chooses the number amounts or the Tribal breakdown or why He attaches meanings to certain symbols or like to use numbers. Right now, I don't, other than to give us a riddle, a puzzel to solve...A brain teaser of importance.
................................................
Leolaia
The argument that the 144,000 number must be literal because the passage mentions the Lamb in the same sentence is weak because a singular noun is just a singular noun -- not a contrasting number; it does not itself demand that any other number mentioned in the same sentence must be literal, especially since the "Lamb" itself is a figurative expression.
If you are arguing literality on the basis of the Lamb being mentioned in the same passage, does that mean that Jesus is literally a lamb? Or would you use a figurative lamb to argue for a literal number of figurative virgins?
Yes, Leolaia, the fact they are in the same sentence adds meaning to the number!
How many "Lambs of God" are there??? John 1:29 One, only one and it is of major significance that the two are connected in the same sentance.
.........................................................
You both may have the last word.

144,000 a literal number

Share this